As Menzingen keeps insisting that they won't end up like the rest (i.e., the FSSP, Campos, Institute of Christ the King, etc.) who have openly surrendered to modernist Rome and have accepted Vatican II as part of Tradition, how would the official act of the sellout "on that big day" be explained to the "pay-pray-and-obey" crowd that still follow them (assuming they would even dare ask for an explanation)?

(Note: Just to be clear here, the sellout has already happened. I'm just referring to the ceremonious signing with balloons, trumpets . . . and perhaps tightly clad Vatican acrobats!)  

I've often wondered about this question, if only for amusement.

How would Bishop Fellay finally pull it off before the microphone that day? How would he explain away the modernist merger with a straight face? How would he not look like a complete "I really drove a hard bargain with those sharks down at the used car lot" telling the traditionalist world that the SSPX would operate under Rome but (somehow miraculously) hold its own against ANY and ALL compromises with modernism?

Well, first of all, Bishop Fellay has time and time again proven himself to be a crypto-rationalist--that is, in short, . . . objective reality takes a back seat to ideas and concepts manufactured by the mind for its convenience. That ought to provide some clues as to how he would handle the "explanation."

If it all somehow fits neatly together in his slippery-slope, relativistic mind, well hey, that should be good enough for his underlings to accept! He, after all, "has the grace of state" (just like John XXIII, Paul VI, and the rest did).

Being the one to constantly tell his audience what they want to hear; being the one to endlessly splice and dice the definitions of terms once clear to us (calling Pope Francis a "genuine modernist" but then later backing down and saying, "Well, . . . not quite in the "formal" sense . . ."; saying that the religious liberty of Vatican II was meant "in a very limited sense"), it should be small fete for him to do as the modernist Romans do as far as the official sellout line:

1. Keep the traditionalist-sounding "fighting" words strategically placed here and there in order to further tranquilize the die-hard, "no matter what," Menzingen loyalist drones in his fold.

2. Change or further complicate the definitions of these traditional battle-cry fighting terms, so that contradictions to them in real practice can be easily blended away, appealing to the sheer "complexity" of how things really are. (Good bye, "Yes, yes, no, no.")

3. Gradually introduce new terms or put the emphasis on Happy Meal-sounding terms along the lines of this "re-branding" fiasco.        

4. Subtly reframe or reword the portrayal of the crisis and its true culprits, hoping that this shift goes unnoticed:

Examples:

a. the term traditional "apostolate" (thereby immediately downgrading Tradition to a mere "flavor of the day" and making its propagation a mere "apostolate" amongst equals such as the "Novus Ordo apostolate," "the social justice apostolate," etc.

b. that Vatican II was the "cause" of the modernist errors of our times (no, Vatican II contained errors itself; it wasn't just the "cause" of errors).

c. speaking of a "return" of Tradition to the Church (not quite . . . the TRUE Church and Tradition are no more separable than fire and heat.        

So, in the end, Bishop Fellay will make no compromises after all with modernism, as promised, . . . if by "compromises" he so happens to mean ("in a very limited sense of the word") X, Y, and Z (in effect, a condition so rhetorically "out there" that it can safely be presumed never to come into fruition).

Bishop Fellay will never subscribe to the Hermeneutics of Continuity, as he assures his followers, because in his mind one won't be necessary--Vatican II and Tradition already being "one" in his mind and the real problem lying in being able to convincingly articulate this pre-existing and indisputable connection in a manner that can peacefully sit side-by-side with ABL's venerable 1974 declaration. I have no doubt Bishop Fellay could do this in his sleep.

So, no need to admit to anything or alarm the good and obedient PXers still remaining with radical new beliefs and polices. No guitar beach Masses and cool new shades necessary! Just use the same old façade and the traditional-sounding talking points--but let there be no end to the dicing and slicing of their actual definitions (i.e., Fr. Themann's funky new concept of "prudential truth"), making room for every kind of modernist poison to creep in under traditionalist cloak.

Bishop Fellay . . . "Modernism in Motion"    

   

As Menzingen keeps insisting that they won't end up like the rest (i.e., the FSSP, Campos, Institute of Christ the King, etc.) who have openly surrendered to modernist Rome and have accepted Vatican II as part of Tradition....

:sign-surrender:

The irony is several years ago anybody, who was critical of Bishop Fellay were told they had an agenda against Bishop Fellay. The irony he being the one with an agenda.

Bishop Fellay and Menzingen played on the fears of the laity. Even recently in Ireland, Fr Pfluger warned laity not to cut themselves off from the Mass.

A woman in another District was placed under "Holy Obedience". Did she ever wonder why?

Laity have only themselves to blame. Many were taken for complete fools.

I disagree with the former Cath Info member Telesphorus of the SSPX being a cult but agree critical thinking is not encouraged.

I experienced this with an SSPX priest in St.George's House. He wanted be to believe I had read a lie on the internet.  To him I was such a bold boy to have thought for myself, read something true. He was quite patronising and rather insulting.

I realise he was saving face  and wanted to protect his pious union but I am happy to go before a secular Judge about it and will stand over my comment to him when I face the judgement of God.

Quote from: John Grace

The irony is several years ago anybody, who was critical of Bishop Fellay were told they had an agenda against Bishop Fellay. The irony he being the one with an agenda.

Bishop Fellay and Menzingen played on the fears of the laity. Even recently in Ireland, Fr Pfluger warned laity not to cut themselves off from the Mass.

A woman in another District was placed under "Holy Obedience". Did she ever wonder why?

Laity have only themselves to blame. Many were taken for complete fools.

I disagree with the former Cath Info member Telesphorus of the SSPX being a cult but agree critical thinking is not encouraged.

I experienced this with an SSPX priest in St.George's House. He wanted be to believe I had read a lie on the internet.  To him I was such a bold boy to have thought for myself, read something true. He was quite patronising and rather insulting.

I realise he was saving face  and wanted to protect his pious union but I am happy to go before a secular Judge about it and will stand over my comment to him when I face the judgement of God.

There used to be a funny old expression about the Ford Model-T . . . that you could have it in any color you wanted as long as it was black. So it is with Menzingen. Critical thinking? Oh sure! Go ahead! But just not against Menzingen.

As you mention black, I recall Raphaela stating 'Krahgate' was black propaganda. Very few SSPX laity were concerned about it. GREC got a better response.

I am sorry to have involved myself in the nonsense.

I remember like a fool phoning up St George's House to defend the Ignis Ardens forum and after Clare calling me a troublemaker.

Most SSPX folk disregarded Krahgate as rubbish.

Based on how I witnessed the lay faithful acceptance of the neo-SSPX when the independent chapel I went to was given to the Society, I don't think they will have to "sell" anything.

Whatever they are told will be accepted without question.  

The only issue that might cause a disturbance is if the agreement with Rome requires the chapel to close...and I'm not even sure if that disturbance would be more than a ripple as many of the new attendees came from the archdiocesan indult parish (and many of these people split their time between the SSPX chapel and the indult parish even now, more than a year after the chapel was given to the Society).

I am so thankful that there was another independent chapel just 50 or so miles further away.

A good comment. Many SSPX laity in Ireland also attend the Indult or are favourable to it. I was told several times it is ok to attend the Indult. Not everybody is 100% pixie. *Pixie is the Indult folk term for SSPX laity. A Pixie chick is a woman, who attends an SSPX chapel.

All in all a good comment.